Is the Historical Adam in the Same Category as the Resurrection?

Dr. Sean McDowell asks Dr. Craig about comparing views on the historical Adam to those on the veracity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. You can watch the entire interview here: https://youtu.be/0uGrzWMWtkw

SEAN MCDOWELL: Would you put the historical Adam then in the same category as the resurrection? Both you and I have written books and defended it. 1 Corinthians 15 is clear: If Christ is not risen, our faith is in vain. Would you say similarly if Adam is not historical, our faith is in vain, or would you qualify it differently?

DR. CRAIG: No, I think that would be really misplaced theological priorities. I would say that it would require you to revise your doctrine of inspiration and your Christology, but by no means would the denial of the historical Adam make you a heretic or separate you from salvation. In fact, in the opening chapter of the book, I explore a few of these worst case scenarios as I call them. I say, “Suppose my proposal doesn't work. Suppose we're stuck with one of these worst case scenarios where the Bible teaches that there was a historical Adam and yet there wasn't one?” And I try to show that even given that worst case scenario there are moves that we can make to preserve orthodox Christian belief even given those reverberations.

SEAN MCDOWELL: So in this book you're really trying to get to kind of a mere Christianity, minimal doctrine of what the historical Adam is. Can it be defended plausibly? So that's why, at the beginning, you're saying even if there's not a historical Adam (which you don't embrace), it's not necessarily fatal to Christianity, although it would take serious revisioning compared to finding the body of Jesus. So important, but not essential.

DR. CRAIG: Exactly. If the resurrection is false, Christianity is doomed. That is a fatal blow. But if Adam never existed, that's not, I think, a fatal blow to Christianity.